From Kirk Talley’s e-mail newsletter today:
Sunday morning I sang in Kilgore, Texas at the First Bapt Church of Danville. Pastor Freeman Pierce invited me to share my testimony and sing. The church is a new church, only been established 9 weeks. Freeman shared with me before the service how the church was started and the outreach and the vision of the people there. I was blessed to be there already. I shared my testimony that morning and I noticed lot’s of people wiping tears. After I concluded, Freeman came to the stage and shared with me that in the audience that morning were a lot of people that were dealing with strongholds in their lives. A murderer, a cocaine addict, a heroine addict, a doctor who was going to prison for illegal drug use. …. He even shared that a prostitute had tried to solicit sex with him a few weeks prior. He witnessed to her and his wife went and picked the girl up and took her to the church. The young girl accepted Christ as her savior and has been free from drugs for the past 16 days.
The desire to help troubled souls is honorable, and I’m glad that people have been given solutions to their addictions and other wrongs.
However, the limited list of sins is instructive: murder, drug addiction, prostitution. There is no mention of sins discussed most often in the Bible: greed, sloth, war, hubris, usury, exploitation of the poor and vulnerable. And sadly, there is no obvious indication whether Pastor Pierce can make rational distinctions between same-sex affection and manslaughter.
If Talley disagrees with this buffet-style morality — an "ethic" in which churches freely indulge in sin at Food Table A while judging those who eat from Table B — then he does not share that disagreement publicly.
At the risk of overgeneralizing, I’ll phrase this another way: I see a pattern in the testimonies of deliverance given in the southern gospel music circuit. In limiting their moral vision to stereotypical red-state cliches, many of America’s churches and religious spokespersons seem to have blinded themselves to blue-state (and purple-state) moral imperatives.
Sadly, having once been involved in the kinds of churches that appreciate southern gospel, I’d have to agree with your observation. I don’t think it’s an overgeneralization.
sorry I’m feeling the need to be snotty to Kirk, would you insert [sic] follwing “lot’s”
What I notice here is the idea that there are no social problems which would admit of a more general solution or amelioration. Instead, whatever is going wrong is solely the fault of the individual. It would strike me that putting doctors in jail for drug problems is not a very sensible course of action. But that is outside the range of ideas available to evangelical Christians. Instead we see the one dimensional view with the one and only solution, which appears to have nothing to do with the problem.
Someone should tell him that it’s HEROIN, not “heroine”.
He’s just another sellout who damages us all for his own greed. These people are why gays have such problems today.
>I see a pattern in the testimonies of deliverance given in the southern gospel music circuit.
Oh, jeez, Talley’s testimonial is nothing more than a reprise of Jimmy Swaggart’s crocodile tears when he–Swaggart–tried to salvage his “ministry” after he was found to be cavorting with women who were not his wife. “I fell from grace, but I’m trying to do better.” Conservative Christians eat that stuff up for a while. But, after the dust settled, Swaggart wasn’t able to reclaim his former status as King of the Mountain–or Queen of the May–and it is highly unlikely that Talley will be able to, either.
Recall that Swaggart’s cousin, the singer Jerry Lee Lewis, famously mentioned that both he (Lewis) and Swaggart were in the same industry–the entertainment industry. So is Talley.
I wonder, though. What is Mike Airhart’s interest in Talley? It strike me that Mike has had far too many posts regarding this guy. One might seriously wonder whether Airhart obsessed with Talley. This is Airhart’s website and he can do with it what he will. But seriously….
>There is no mention of sins discussed most often in the Bible: greed, sloth, war, hubris, usury, exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.
Well, of course not. These are the things that their Sky Pixie (a/k/a their “god) supposedly hates. On the other hand, these are the things that they themselves want to indulge in. You don’t really–uh–believe that they are going to whack what the majority wants, when they can just as easily wack a few people (um, fags) when they can achieve the same result.
I’m sure if there is such a thing as red state or blue state morality. I happen to live in a blue state and support it. But I happen also to agree with the red states positions. And I also agree that Churches position on sin should go beyond homosexuality. All have sin and come short of God’s glory, not just the homosexual. As long as we can safely catagorize sin we will always look at the next guy without feeling the need to look in the mirror at ourselves. You see not only Christians are self righteous. But those who feel justified in their positions at the expense of others and the Bible’s position on morality.
“the Bible’s position on morality…”
That can mean a whole lot of things, to different people. That’s why, as a gay Christian, I prefer the codes of law, Constitution, and a Bill of Rights, with all their inherent problems as a map for morality– instead of a theocratic interpretation of what the Bible supposedly says. The Bible has been used to justify a whole lot of practices and beliefs that modern Americans would find abhorrent, but a tyrannical majority felt quite comfortable with at the time.
“Biblical Morality”
I totally agree that the Bible’s position on morality can mean a whole lot of things to different folks. The reason being is some folks don’t really understand the Bible, consequently many people do not read it daily for it’s advice, direction and guidelines by which to live.
Interpretation is based on our positions we hold to, our perceptions as well as our environment and not to forget our up bringing. However, when one looks at the scriptures and views them with an objective mindset the only conclusion we can come to from the Old Testament and New Testament is that homosexuality is a sin. (Read Paul’s letter to the Roman’s 1:18 to the end of the chapter)
As a Christian it is imperative that we live by the principles of Christianity, which is love. More importantly, we must love the Lord our God with all our hearts and obey his commandments and follow his laws. The Constitution, Bill of rights and codes of law have their respective places in the moral code of ethics. However, are primary code of moral ethics should be the word of God, the Bible.
Nevertheless, homosexuality is not the only sin we need to address or concern ourselves with. All moral issues that seem to erode our society and values we hold dear should be called into questioned. It is with that view I follow the following:
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments:for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”
Ecclesiates 12:13-14
At any rate, including in that directive is that we must love every body, including the sinner and the homosexual.
Harold wrote: “…homosexuality is not the only sin we need to address…”
But, sir…. are you referring to the orientation/same-sex attraction as a ‘sin’, or are you referring to acting-out sexual behaviors that are found in all segments of society, like promiscuity, infidelity, and other forms of acting-out outside of a committed monogamous relationship? I realize there are many varieties of opinion on the issue, but I’m asking what you (Harold) are referring to so I can understand your statement about what needs to be addressed.
Harold, I suggest you re-read your own cite. At the start of Romans, Paul is saying that, when people turn away from God and become idolaters and pagans, one of the ways God punishes them is by making them do things that they wouldn’t normally be interested in (like homosexuality). To say that the passage condemns homosexuality is to put the cart before the horse.
I refer you to this post I made a while back on another forum while disputing the supposed condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. I didn’t cover Romans 1, but some of the same principles apply. In particular, the only examples of homosexuality that Paul had handy were (a) pagan temple prostitution, and (b) Greek pederasty, so he jumped to the conclusion that one was a symptom of the other.
If condemning homosexuality was really so important, though, why didn’t Jesus mention it? I mean, hell, if you’re going to take the Bible literally, only 144,000 people will be saved, and all of them will be virgin men [Rev 14:3-4] (women are apparently too icky for heaven, whether you are one or you’ve touched one), marriage itself is a compromise, not something holy [1 Cor 7:1-2], women must cover their heads in church [1 Cor 11:5-7], and it is shameful for a woman to speak in church [1 Cor 14:34-35]. Most of those passages are Paul’s words, but even Jesus gets into the act when He declares that those who abandon their families to follow Him will be rewarded 100-fold [Matt 19:29].
Sure, the Bible has some good stuff in there, but I don’t see how anyone could in good conscience take it literally.
Harold:
You state that “we must love the Lord our God with all our hearts and obey his commandments and follow his laws” you are referring ONLY to “Christians” correct?
You see, we live in a country that, for better or for worse, is secular, and therefore I cannot be compelled to believe as you do, or to live my life as you do simply because you think it best. I, in fact, reject much of the “morality” that the collection of writings known colloquially as “the bible” (although we must understand that there are literally thousands of versions of that collection of writings, many with very different translations of the same passages).
I do not believe, for instance, that slavery is ever a solid or moral foundation on which to rest a society, despite “the bible”‘s support for that peculiar institution. I do not believe that women are inferior to men and should be barred from leadership positions, despite “Saint” Paul’s writings, and centuries of extrapolations on them, on the subject. And I do not believe that romantic love and sexuality between two people of the same gender is automatically a negative thing, with negative consequences for all involved. I have known solid, mature, loving and productive relationships based on same-gender love, and therefore must reject the proposition that it is a “sin.”
But in this country, I am allowed to hold those views, and others that I believe we have lost sight of in this country. Our nation was founded not merely on the ideal that all men are created equal, but that all citizens can and will lead productive, honest, law-abiding lives if left to their own devices. We live according to the ideal that people must be proven guilty of causing some kind of damage before we judge them and limit their civil liberties.
The anti-gay argument is, at its core, a rejection of these ideals (as were racism and other ethnic bigotries). The argument states that, because of alleged unique properties of gay people and our relationships, we must all be judged as negative, as bad for our society, without individually being proven guilty of doing anything. It argues our lives must be controlled, censored and limited because we, as a group, pose a threat to our society. That is a fundamentally unAmerican ideal.
I happen to chose to live according to American and not “Christian” values, and that is my right in this country.
It seems my comments set off a fire storm. Well first let me begin by saying when I say what needs to be address as sin I was dealing with all forms of sin not related to homosexual sex.
Secondly, Paul’s comments in Romans was written to deal with the culture of his day and the sexual revolution of homosexual love that seemly dominated the Roman and Greek societies at the time. The key to the passage is as you pointed out “they knew God and failed to worship him as God and served the creature more than the Creator.” Paul ties idolatry to immorality.
How does that fit today (if the scriptures are to be taken literally), well the more we leave Judeo/Christian principles and serve our humanity or our lustful desires without regard to scripture and God (the one who created all of us)we fall into the category of idolatry. And yes you guessed it, that my friend leads to immorality. HOWEVER, THAT IMMORALITY IS NOT JUST EXCLUSIVE TO HOMOSEXUALITY, BUT ALL SIN.
Finally, as CPT Doom points out we are in a free country, (Thank God) and we all have the right to think and live life as we please. Again scripture says that when there was no King in Israel: every man did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges21:25) Also in Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts. Without the aid of God and the scriptures we have no recourse of path we choose. Whether a Christian or a religious person the decisions we make and the choices we live by are based on what we think and our perceptions. If we live by the Bible and follow its precepts there is only one recourse.
Monogamous or committed same sex relationships are not natural. When participating in sexual acts with the same sex you run the risk of causing yourself harm and your partner. Health wise, men’s bodies were not made to receive the male penis and women’s bodies were made to receive the male penis. Hence, when men engage in homosexual love or sex they are causing damage to the anal tract. You are open to infections, disease, pain etc. Simply put your butt or anal parts weren’t made for something to go in only come out.
You are 100% right and you have the right to live as you please. But, there are consequences to our actions and whether or not we face them today or tomorrow or in eternity we will face them whether we believe or don’t believe. That’s God’s right.
In my last entry I spoke of homosexual activity not being normal or natural, while viewing sites on the internet regarding homosexuals health my conclusions were further confirmed.
Just as I pointed out the rectum was not made to receive a penis and this is why:
Homosexual men suffer whole list of diseases that are in the hetersexual community, but TEN times more so in the homosexual community such as gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, public lice, scabies. Also homosexual men are subject to enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, (gay bowel disease). Not to mention Hepatitis A,B,C,D and cytomegalovirus) trauma related to and or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure and foriegn bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema and chemical sinusitis as well as AIDS.
In 2002 in the Los Angeles area Gay men have reported suffering from boils, inflammation and abscesses on their hands, legs and genitals. This disease is known as Staphylococcus Aureus Bateria aka Staph. Doctors believe it can be passed from skin to skin, clubs or gyms and during sex. Side note during the sex the rectum is torn semen can easily pass or penerate the rectal wall enter the blood stream and cause problems. This Staph is not isolated to the West Coast, but has been found in Boston and Washington. What about the parasitic diarrhea?
One asks what’s wrong with homosexual love? CPT Doom you are wrong about this being anti-gay or against you personally, this is about health choices and lifestyles. The lifestyle and its consequences that are “bad” or negative, not people. I believe that most homosexuals, although they are enjoying the sex and oral stimulation many after the act are not happy. They feel trapped – that God made them this way. We have to die sometime so lets have fun before we go. My friends there is a better way!
Who in their right mind would subject themselves to hatred and bigtroy? Who would put themselves in arms way and engage in a lifestyle that is sexually unhealthy? Who wants 20 to 50 or more sexual partners? Who wants to be ridicule? No one so the person who engages in this lifestyle does so because they are trapped and if they had a choice they would get out. I’m simply posting here that you can!!!!
Um, let’s get something straight. This Harold is nothing more than a troll.
sigh
Number one, I’d like to see you explain how anal sex has anything to do with lesbians (who make up a big proportion of the gay community) or else admit that since transmission of disease is apparently a sign from God, logically God wants all men to get sex changes so we can all be lesbians (since lesbians have lower STD transmission rates than both straights and gay men).
Number two, straight couples practice anal sex as well — hell, today’s teenagers positively worship it, because they can’t get pregnant by it — and many gay male couples stick to other, safer stuff anyway.
Number three, you take any group, shun them, and insult their ego by making a list of reasons why they might as well just kill themselves already, you end up with depressed people acting out in sexually promiscuous ways without caring about the long-term future. Are black people sinful? STDs are rippling through the black U.S. community at a rate far exceeding that of whites, because of a culture where men feel they have to prove their masculinity because of the shame forced on them by racism.
Now sit down, stop reading Paul Cameron’s recycled bullshit statistics, and tell us exactly why the sorts of gay people living in monogamous, faithful relationships (i.e. the ones who want to get married) deserve the sort of hateful spew you’re directing at them. Until you do that, I suggest you go troll some other forum.
Chronos, regarding the Harold troll, you might be well advised to can it. Are you really unable to recognize a troll when you see one?
BTW, I almost wasted the time to compose a post on Morrison’s site, which, for a reason that I cannot fathom, is linked to here. The proprietors of this web site might to well to reflect on the fact that Morrison really does have a problem, and it probably isn’t his same-sex attraction. Morrison’s problem is probably based on the fact that it is highly unlikely that other males would want to have sex with him. A few hours at the gym might help him in that.
Further regarding Morrison’s site, it is clear that more than a few idiots have set up web sites on which they can kvetch. But, on the other hand, it strikes be that it is really dumb for other people to advertise the kvetschers.
Yes Harold,we do, thank God, live in a free country. It is a country where, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, I am now free to express my sexuality in the ways of my choosing,without governmental interference.
But that means I also have the responsibility to myself to engage only in healthy expressions of my sexuality. It is interesting that neither I, nor most of my gay friends, have ever had ANY of the health issues you discuss. It may be that many of my friends are like a lot of gay men, and do not choose to express their sexuality in the act you reference (and really, is it necessary to get so graphic? this is not a porno site). It may also be that many of the problems you cite are due, not to the specific sexual act a gay man may or may not engage in, but rather to promiscuity, which we have seen through the ages carries health risks (remember, straight people gave us the first fatal STD – syphillis). It must also be assumed, as there are gay men (and straight couples) who engage in the sexual act you reference, yet suffer no damage, that there are ways to achieve that sexual act without causing harm.
You see, Harold, you do not have my medical record in front of you, and you cannot judge my life or the ramifications of my sexual choices based on population samples. I am a human being, and I deserve the respect of my government and of my peers – and that includes not assuming I am damaging my life based on dubious statistics.
It happens to be the case that my most pressing medical concerns right now are due to violent crime – I was mugged two weeks ago and had to have facial reconstructive surgery. I live in a predominantly African-American city (Washington DC) and was attacked by two African-American youths. In fact, most of the crime in my city is caused by African-American people, mainly straight men. By your logic, I would be justified in considering every African-American man a violent criminal (and don’t get me wrong, I have been appalled at the number of people who believe I should leap to that conclusion, even in 2004).
But the thing is, the very first person who helped me after the attack was an African-American man, the EMT was an African-American man, and it was an African-American man who helped out my sister when my car conked out and she was on her way to get me at the hospital.
Members of any group must never be judged by statistics, but by their own reality. You assume, Harold, that you know me, and know that I have a desire to “change” because you think my life must be awful. But you do not know me, and cannot know me through a pack of statistics, whatever their reliability or accuracy.
In the same way that Jesus taught the Jews that Samaritans could be good people, it is long past time for certain “Christians” to acknowledge that gay people can be wonderful human beings, leading productive happy lives. That admission certainly makes your arguments harder to make, Harold, but you at least would be telling the truth.
Raj, when you’re not insulting me for writing about the few exgays that I have time to write about, you’re insulting people for being overweight.
I have limited time for XGW, and I have better things to do than to put up with your whining. Get a life. You’re rapidly becoming unwelcome here.
It’s interesting how some of these threads can get off track with someone raving about a topic that has nothing to do with the subject.
However, I think that it is very revelant that Mike posts topics pertaining to the on-going saga of Kirk Talley. He was/is an icon in the gospel music circuit when it was revealed that his sexual orientation is gay. He went through some religious reparative therapy and now he is back on the concert circuit telling his testimony. I haven’t heard his testimony, but I assume that since he is giving it in mainstream conservative churches it is a testimony of deliverance to some extent. I just wonder if he is telling the whole truth–and only Kirk Talley knows the answer to that question.
It appears that Airhart seems to be unable to appreciate the fact that, to those of us who were paying attention, not only to Morrison, but, also to wacky people like Paulk, Johnston, and this-a and that-a and the other-a, their anti-gay whining is largely due to their own personal situations. In Johnston’s case, it was his inability to refrain from anal sex, notwithstanding the fact that he was HIV pos. Who knows what it was in Paulk’s case. In Morrison’s case, which I specifically referred to, it was obviously due to his inability to refrain from eating. I do believe that there something in the Wholly Babble that suggests that Gawd hates gluttons. Well, Mr. Airhart? You aren’t going to suggest otherwise, are you?
Sorry, Mike. I’d cite you chapter and verse, but, to paraphrase your complaint about me, I have better things to do.
On the other hand, one might seriously wonder why a glutton like Morrison apparently believes it within his purview to bash gay people. Which, quite frankly, is what he has been doing. Rhetorically, of course. Of course. Morrison might wrap his rhetorical bashing in velvet gloves, but, to those of us who are paying attention, we know rhetorical bashing when we see it. Apparently, the christian-wannabe-lapdogs among us–Airhart included–are unable to recognize the obvious.
BTW, and to Jim, Talley made his bed. He will sleep in it.
I must have missed something. Who is “Morrison”? The first cite is in raj’s November 29, 2004 09:41 AM post, but I don’t see a link. Nor do I see how if he is overweight that bears on gay/exgay issues.
David Morrison
It’s my impression that just about everyone in the United States commits gluttony; hardly anyone eats solely what they need for sustenance.
As I understand the situation, Raj read my comment that Pastor Pierce has a small and self-serving list of moral concerns — and arbitrarily applied that thought to Morrison’s sex life.
I am always amused when trolls, Harold among them, trot out the “it’s diseased” canard. Pray tell, what sexual activity pattern-related diseases do lesbians get? The #1 diseases related to sexual choices of lesbians, increased risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial (upper uterine) cancer, are shared with nuns, yes, NUNS, and the expected causes are the same: hormonal milieu of non-childbearing woman, along with consequent higher numbers of ovulations.
Hello, hope everyone had a nice holiday.
This site is suppose to be a place where people can list their opinions and state the positions pro or con. And hopefully everyone comments would be respected. Apparently, not so on this site. While i disagree with the lifestyle of homosexuals whether lesbian or gay (men) I not once attacked any one of you personally. My comments yes disagreed with your position, interpretation, but I did not call anyone a name or insult them. I stated facts and my opiniion but never in a disrespectful manner.
Where is the tolerance? Where is the acceptance of all people and their perspectives even if they differ with our own. It appears to me and most conservative christians that homosexuals can preach tolerance, but very few can themselves practice it. YES, HETEROSEXUALS CAN BE DISRESPECTFUL OF HOMOSEXUALS, BUT AREN’T HOMOSEXUALS GUILTY OF THE SAME THING?
My opinions and health facts I’ve presented received not honest dialogue, but comments like I’m a troll, sexual inundos and the like.
Tell, me when did I Nancy, Regan or Raj, CPT disrespect you or judge any of you, besides to tell you I disagree with your lifestyle?
It is your right to do as you please – it is also the right of Christians to do as they please. AND it is God’s Right to JUDGE US ALL as HE pleases. Whether you like or agree with Biblical morality it is that basics on which we will stand before God.
Lastly, whether lesbian sex or gay sex – the lifestyle is not healthy statistics proves this take a visit to Center for Disease Control. Not just the bias reporting of Paul Cameron’s statistics. The Center for Disease Control has just this month issued a statement saying AIDS is higher in 2003 than it was in 2002. Chronos, avoid the issues if you want – fact is the life style is not healthy. Deal with the facts – like how many men and women have died because of homosexual sex – (AIDS)? The numbers are high. And for the homosexual community to be 5% of the population, they have more indivduals within their community dying or have died from AIDS than any other community. Yes, AIDS have affected the heterosexual community and unfortnately it is affecting the African American community at alarming levels, but homosexuals are still leading the pack. Deal with the diseases, the high sucidial attempts of homosexuals not happy. Deal with the high rate of homosexuals who are alcoholics. Deal with the high number of deaths among homosexual couples involved in sexual practices that hurt and mame one another.
While CPT you are happy there are others who are not. For those who wish to change, I offer you hope that you can. Those of you that don’t want to change find – no need to attack. My primace is this homosexuality is not the only sin we need to preach against. One I did not include I should have would be intolerance. It’s okay to disagree, but never to bash, hate or call names simply because someone disagrees and presents information that may contradict what we say or may be in total opposition to us.
At any rate, God bless and keep you all as you seek his will or as you do as you please. After all this is America
Harold:
It is interesting that you call for “tolerance” but fail to show any to the individuals on this site. You see, you make HUGE assumptions about us when you criticize our “lifestyle.”
You don’t know anything about me or the vast majority of millions of gay people in this country. Yet you assume you can make statements, and call for limitations on our rights (e.g., our right to be respected by our government) based on your stereotypes of gay people.
Yes, Harold, I am happy, and MILLIONS of gay people are also living happy lives. Yet you do not acknowledge or respect us in any way, shape or form.
I believe very strongly that “evangelical religions” are not only anti-Christian, but also a threat to the future of this country. Yet I would never presume to assume that all people who ascribe to those “religions” are bad people, or should have their lives limited, or should be disrespected by the government. I would never use the fact that states with the highest percentages of “evangelical” residents are also the states with the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc. to argue that all evangelicals should be somehow controlled by the government – and this despite clear data that the “evangelical lifestyle” is associated with a whole host of societal ills.
That is the difference Harold – no one here is advocating any governmental action to stop the “evangelical” plague on our society. No one here is arguing that the government should not support the “evangelical lifestyle,” or that our libraries should be censored to remove all “evangelical” material (as one Alabama legislator has argued for all books with any and all gay content). That is what tolerance is all about, Harold – not making assumptions about people because they belong to a certain group – but to make judgements of people based on their individual actions.
You insult me, Harld, when you assume things about me, or use your dubious “statistics” to argue that my life is less valuable than another citizen’s.
Oh, and your old “the faggots gave us AIDS” argument is not only a joke, it is a lie – HIV is, was, and always will be a predominantly heterosexual disease – just look at Africa, where poor sexual choices by far too many heterosexual males are the leading cause of HIV infections. In fact, world-wide, fewer than 5% of all HIV infections are caused by homosexual relations – and we’re 5% of the population, so that’s about right.
The West was granted a rare reprieve from HIV when it first hit the gay community – we were the canary in the coal mines warning the rest of the country of what was to come. Yet we were ignored, attacked and left to die by a government that just did not give a damn.
Yet now what we see, and it is clear from the CDC research, that it is the STRAIGHT community, not the gay community, that is spreading HIV. 56% of the current infections are NOT through homosexual content, and years of recent research has demonstrated that it is “straight” men (those with wives and girlfriends, living the “lifestyle” they are told to by their churches and sub-cultures) who are most likely to get HIV through homosexual contact. That’s right, Harold, just as with child molestation, the man least likely to acquire a new HIV infection through homosexual contact right now is a sober, out-and-proud, gay man in a committed relationship. The man most likely to acquire a new HIV infection through homosexual contact is a closeted, self-hating, “straight” man who cannot deal with his sexuality. The assumption that all the men who acquire HIV through homosexual sex are “gay” is a mistake – a large group of these men consider themselves straight. Just another example of how one cannot categorize or stereotype “gay” people based on the “data” available.
You see, Harold, it is not homosexuality that causes distress in the gay community (and what community, pray tell, does not have negative things in it?), it is homophobia. Those gay people raised in tolerant environments, whose families continue to love them after they come out, are the least likely to suffer all the ills you mention. Those who are rejected by their societies, their families, their “churches” – they are the ones most likely to have problems.
God works in mysterious ways, Harold, and maybe if you opened your mind a bit, and realized that there are homosexuals in every corner of your world, even though you don’t realize it. We are not some alien species dedicated to mere sexual pleasure, but real human beings, living real and varied lives. When you can sit with a gay couple and have dinner in the same way that you would sit with a Jewish couple and have dinner – that is, in agreeing to ignore your religious differences – that is when you can truly call yourself tolerant. That is when you will TRULY be able to call yourself a Christian. I’m afraid now (at least from what you’ve written on this site)you fall far short of the mark.
I’ve blocked Harold for trolling — specifically, for stereotyping other commenters and issuing baseless assertions about disease, domestic violence, and mortality that he could easily have fact-checked (and disproven) if he had cared about accuracy.
A request to folks in general: If you wish to quote science or health stats, please provide links to your sources. Thanks.
Kirk Talley has re-vamped his site at http://www.KirkTalley.com. His new format includes his testimony. Something that was missing before. It’s not the road I would have taken, but then my income does not depend on southern gospel music and the people who listen to it.
Every Homosexual that doesn’t repent of their sin for loving the same sex will be cast into the lake of fire. For God’s word says that it is an abomination. It is so sick for someone to be attracted to the same sex. You need to get saved, santified, and baptized in the Holy Ghost.
For the Bible says that no sin will enter into his kingdom.
In other words, CNGM, you belief homosexuals must be saved by works alone, not by their faith or God’s grace.
How special of you to save yourself by grace while judging others according to the Law.
And how special that you ignore your own lack of repentance. Your own sins are an abomination, and you are “sick,” as you say, for hating and judging other people and for wishing them to Hell. You are filled not with the Holy Spirit, CNGM, but with your own inflated ego.
On Judgment Day, Jesus will say to you, “CNGM, I did not know you.”
I will pray for God’s mercy upon your soul, CNGM. Repent and be humble.